Hello Everyone,
Having studied Buddhist philosopy (and Western traditional phiolosophy to a much lesser extent) on the issue of personal and phenomenal identity, I have long been fascinated with this passage from The Seth Material, an excerpt from Session 138, 3/8/'65. I believe it ranks equally with the "royal reason" of the great Buddhist Madhyamika ("Middle Way"*) philosophers such as Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti (although from a different "angle"), leading those who give it true consideration to hints of a visceral experience of their true nature, the flow of our natural Being. Maybe I'm prejudiced, but to my thinking this stuff leaves most traditional Western philosophical ponderings in the dust...........I get more out of this passage every time I read it.
*("Middle Way" refers specifically in this case to a philosophical position which rejects the extreme views of both Absolutism and Nihilism......i.e. things do exist....the illusion is that they exist solidly, permanently, inherently, absolutely or separately....[hi Jak!]) So here goes, this is going to take some typing and I hope I don't offend the copyright folks........
"Identity may be termed action which is conscious of itself. For the purposes of our discussion, the terms 'action' and 'identity' must be separated, but basically no such separation exists. An Identity is also a dimension of existence, action within action, an unfolding of action upon itself - and through this interweaving of action with itself, through this re-action, an identity is formed.
"The energy of action, the workings of action within and upon itself, forms identity. Yet though identity is formed from action, action and identity cannot be separated. Identity then, is action's effect upon itself. Without identity, action would be meaningless, for there would be nothing upon which action could act. Action must, by its very nature, of itself and its own workings, create identities. This applies from the most simple to the most complex.
"Once more, action is not a force from without that acts upon matter. Action is,instead, the inside vitality of the inner universe.it is the dilemma between inner vitality's desire and impetus to completely materialize itself - and its inability to completely do so.
"The first dilemma results in action, and from action's own workings upon itself we have seen that identity was formed, and that these two are inseperable. Action is, therefore, a part of all structure. Action, having of itself and because of its nature formed identity, now also because of its identity would seem to destroy identity, since action must involve change, and any change seems to threaten identity."
"It is a mistaken notion, however, that identity is dependent upon stability. Identity, because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. This is our second dilemma.
"It is the dilemma, between identity"s constant attempts to maintain stability and action's inherent drive for change, that results in the imbalance, the exquisite creative by-product that is consciousness of self. For consciousness and existence do not result from delicate balances so much as they are made possible by lack of balances, so richly creative that there would be no reality were balance ever maintained.
"We have a series of creative strains. Identity must seek stability while action must seek change; yet identity could not exist without change, for it is the result of action, and part of it. Identities are never constant as you yourselves are not the same consciously or unconsciously from one moment to the next. Every action is a termination, as we discussed earlier. And yet without the termination, identity would cease to exist, for consciousness without action would cease to be conscious.
"Consciousness, therefore, is not a 'thing' in itself. It is a dimension of action, an almost miraculous state, made possible by what I choose to call a series of creative dilemmas.
"It should be fairly easy to see how the second dilemma evolved from the first. I have said that the second one resulted in - and constantly results in - consciousness of self. This is not ego consciousness. Consciousness of self is still consciousness directly connected with action. Ego consciousness is a state resulting from the third creative dilemma, which happens when consciousness of self attempts to separate itself from action. Since this is obviously impossible, since no consciousness or identity can exist without action, we have the third dilemma.
"Again, consciousness of self involves a consciousness of self within - and as a part of - action. Ego consciousness, on the other hand, involves a state in which consciousness of self attempts to divorce self from action - an attempt on the part of consciousness to perceive action as an object....and to perceive action as initiated as a result, rather than a cause, of ego's own existence.
"These three dilemmas represent three areas of reality within which inner vitality can experience itself. And here also we have the reason why inner vitality can never acheive complete materialization. The very action involved in vitality's attempt to materialize itself adds to the inner dimension of vitality itself.
"Action [inner vitality] can never complete itself. Materializing in any form whatsoever, it at once multiplies the possibilities of further materialization. At the same time, because inner vitality is self-generating, only a minute fraction of it is needed to seed a universe." The Seth Material, Bantam Edition, p. 235 - 237
Anyone up for discussion? Love, kenny
Note: I originally posted this at the NWV forums, and it led to quite a lively discussion. When I told folks there that I would repost it here i joked that this would lead to a PROBABLE version of the discussion....let's see!
